Free Traffic Legal Advice

 

But to just modify the previous post and identify the laziness of adjudicators, the law makes no reference to where stationary traffic must be, IMO this business of always referencing stopping in the context of whether traffic is stationary outside the box and an exit is clear is misleading.

IMO, while you might stop inside the box to have a fag or take a telephone call or whatever while your exit is clear without contravening the YBJ restriction, the same would not apply to anyone who entered the box after you and stopped behind you because that's not permitted: their exit is not clear. 'Stationary vehicles' applies equally inside the box as outside, subject to the specified exception, which of course exists for the very situation I've described above. 

He stopped, it would appear because the truck turned in front of him.

But when he entered the box at about 08:35:24, his exit was not clear:



He was anticipating it would be, but I'm wondering if what he could see from the driver's seat made him worry, for a brief moment, that it might not be when he got there, and slowed a little so that he wouldn't end up being forced to stop by vehicles blocking his exit.  And when he slowed the truck driver took his chance.

Neither was the exit clear for the silver van at 08:35:19 or the black one a couple of seconds after.

Now - I've always been led to believe that if the HC says "MUST", it's reflecting an actual law, but in this case it is not.

The HC says "You MUST NOT enter the box until your exit road or lane is clear".   But the law doesn't - it says "a person must not cause a vehicle to enter the box junction so that the vehicle has to stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles."

So why does the HC say "MUST NOT"?  I wonder if the two van drivers have also been done?

I always thought it was a case re the exit being clear of "should not enter on the grounds that you must not stop", but hands up - who hasn't at some time entered a YBJ anticipating that they'd make it across, and with some of those times had a brief don't-stop-don't-stop-don't-stop worry about the traffic in front?




And that rejection is a mess.   It quotes the HC "MUST NOT" and in the next para says "should not". 

Thank you all for your responses - I feel the same way in him going all the way (to adj - which is the current stage) & so i will relay that info to him in a structured way so that he understands.

In the meantime i will get him to put the appeal in - Is it the same process where you can submit the appeal & come back to it at later date (within the timelines) with the attachment (compiled word document - appeal letter)?

Precisely! +1.

My friend has created an initial draft to send to the adjudicator.

Would he need to add or remove anything here, and also discuss costs in this appeal letter?

------------------

Dear Sir/Madam,

I wish to appeal the above Penalty Charge Notice on the grounds that the alleged contravention did not occur, and that the signage and layout at the location are unclear and misleading.

⸻

1. The junction layout and signage are ambiguous

The location in question is a Y-junction with markings and signs that are not sufficiently clear to indicate that a driver must give way to oncoming traffic in the manner alleged. The “Give Way to Oncoming Vehicles” sign (if present) is not positioned in a way that gives adequate notice before the decision point. Furthermore, there is no clear road marking or controlled line that would indicate exactly where a vehicle is required to stop or yield.

A motorist approaching the junction would reasonably assume that the key requirement is to ensure their exit path is clear and that they do not obstruct oncoming vehicles. The layout therefore allows for differing interpretations of when and where a vehicle should stop or proceed, creating unfair grounds for enforcement.

⸻

2. My driving was reasonable and in compliance with visible conditions

At the time of the alleged contravention, I approached the junction from [insert direction]. I slowed appropriately, assessed the oncoming traffic, and proceeded when my exit was clear and it was safe to do so. There was no risk of collision or obstruction, and my actions complied with both the Highway Code and the apparent road design.

At no point did I obstruct or fail to give way to oncoming traffic. If any movement was made while waiting for traffic to pass, it was to position safely and allow for clearer visibility. The enforcement video (if reviewed) should confirm that my actions were cautious, proportionate, and consistent with safe driving.

⸻

3. The alleged contravention is based on an unclear interpretation of the regulations

The traffic sign “Give Way to Oncoming Vehicles” (diagram 615 in the Traffic Signs Regulations and General Directions 2016) requires drivers to yield only when necessary to avoid conflict with oncoming traffic. It does not prohibit a driver from proceeding when their exit is clear and no oncoming vehicle has priority at that specific moment.

Therefore, unless the authority can demonstrate that an oncoming vehicle was actually impeded or that I entered the junction contrary to a clear and enforceable restriction, the contravention cannot be proven.

⸻

4. Inadequate evidence and unfair enforcement

From the available evidence, there is no clear indication that I failed to give way. The CCTV stills provided do not establish that an oncoming vehicle was forced to slow or stop, nor do they show any contravention markings such as a solid stop line or controlled junction. The enforcement appears to rely on subjective interpretation rather than a clear breach of signage or road rules.

In such circumstances, it would be unreasonable to uphold a penalty, as drivers cannot be expected to comply with signage or layouts that lack clarity or enforceable instruction.

⸻

5. Conclusion

For these reasons, I respectfully submit that the alleged contravention did not occur and that the Penalty Charge Notice should be cancelled. The junction’s layout and signage fail to provide the necessary clarity to fairly impose enforcement, and my driving at the time was both lawful and considerate.

I kindly request that the adjudicator allow this appeal and direct that the Penalty Charge Notice be cancelled.

Thank you for your time and consideration.

Yours faithfully,

Scrap all of that. In any case all you need to do is register the appeal and opt for a video or telephone hearing.

If you want to send something now just send the below but you can upload stuff later.

----------

In its rejection of my representations the authority misunderstands the law.

The contravention did not occur as at no point did I stop within the box junction due to the presence of stationary vehicles - the second limb was missed by the authority.

The video shows a truck moving to encroach across my route across the box and I stopped only to allow it to proceed. The truck was moving when I did stop to give way, as were the two following cars, and no contravention occurred.

+1 HCA and Stamfordman have given you the grounds for appeal stick with them the shape and size of the box are not winners. Also see the excerpt from the case I posted in support of the popular view it outlines how adjudicators can and should interpret the law

PS. He will be out of the country on the date of the hearing, hence drafting the appeal letter.

When is the hearing?
How long out of country?
Has  he received the Evidence Pack?
LTribunals are normally amenable to changing date of hearing, and also to changing from decision on papers to personal.

P.S.
In th draft, I'd change the phrase stationary queue to stationary vehicles wherever it appears.

I would add the missing information in my first link. Today is the last day unless you reschedule the hearing.

Success here:

https://www.ftla.uk/civil-penalty-charge-notices-(councils-tfl-and-so-on)/redbridge-pcn-entered-a-pedestrian-zone-sydney-road/msg98608/#msg98608